Secular world has a Christian foundation

The contemporary atheist movement has a scorched earth strategy - chop down Christianity, root and branch. I don't believe in God either, but this strategy is entirely counterproductive.

Not satisfied to point out that elements of Christian belief are historically implausible, or that religion is scientifically unsubstantiated, the New Atheist movement wants to prove something more. That Christianity has been a force for bad, that there is something fundamental about religious belief that holds back progress, approves of oppression, and stokes hatred.

Yet virtually all the secular ideas that non-believers value have Christian origins. To pretend otherwise is to toss the substance of those ideas away. It was theologians and religiously minded philosophers who developed the concepts of individual and human rights. Same with progress, reason, and equality before the law: it is fantasy to suggest these values emerged out of thin air once people started questioning God.

Take the separation of church and state - a foundation of the modern secular world, and a core of the political philosophy that atheists should favour above all else. It was, simply, a Christian idea.

Early Christian philosophers thought seriously about what Jesus's words, ''Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's,'' meant for the formation of political society.

St Augustine, writing as Rome fell, saw the City of Man and the City of God as clearly separate. For Augustine, the religious and secular worlds were distinct. The long conflict between the papacy and medieval European kings over the ensuing centuries reinforced this division.
When the father of liberalism, John Locke, argued for religious liberty, he noted there was no such thing in the gospels as a ''Christian Commonwealth''. The Bible insisted on states ''with which the law of Christ hath not at all meddled''.

So, by the time Thomas Jefferson devised the formula of a ''wall of separation between church and state'', he was drawing on 1500 years of Christian thought. The basic philosophy of modern secular democracy - that religious belief is a matter of individual conscience, not government - is a Christian idea. Even more central to our modern identity is the idea that all individuals have human rights, that simply by virtue of being human we have basic liberties that must be protected by law.

This idea too has a deep theological origin. Such mediaeval philosophers as Thomas Aquinas and his follower Francisco de Vitoria married biblical study with classical philosophy.

By doing so, they developed the concept of rights as we understand it today. For these Christian thinkers, ''natural'' rights originated from God. Humans formed societies in order to defend those rights.

Yet many modern human rights activists seem to believe that human rights sprang forth, full-bodied and with a virgin birth, in United Nations treaties in the mid-20th century.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The idea of human rights was founded centuries ago on Christian assumptions, advanced by Biblical argument, and advocated by theologians. Modern supporters of human rights have merely picked up a set of well-refined ethical and moral arguments.

Of course, it could not be otherwise. The modern world is shaped by 3000 years of philosophical evolution. And for half that time the dominant moral philosophy in the Western world has been a Christian one. For most of our history, all the great thinkers have been religious. So our secular liberalism will inevitably owe a huge amount to its Christian origins.

Ideas do not exist in a vacuum. If we imagine they were invented yesterday, they will be easy to discard tomorrow. So why are modern atheist agitators so eager to shed Western civilisation's Christian legacy? Their reasoning - that atheism is attractive not only because it's accurate but because religion is morally bad - ironically resembles the simplistic good-versus-evil propaganda of history's most dangerous religious fanatics. Yet many Christians defend their faith by simply citing the good works of their co-religionists.

Not only does this prove little (of course, some people are good, and some people are bad) it almost always ends in the tit-for-tat, your-team-killed-more-than-my-team debate. Was Adolf Hitler a Christian? Would an answer be at all meaningful? Both sides do this. Richard Dawkins claimed on ABC's Q&A last Monday that Christians were missing in action in the fight against slavery. This is clearly wrong. Has he not heard of the Christian abolitionist movement or William Wilberforce? But it's a revealing error.

Surely, to argue for atheism, there is no logical need to denigrate past Christian accomplishment.

The anti-slavery argument that all humans were of equal moral worth won the day, and this was, to all concerned, a Christian argument. To acknowledge the religious heritage of the modern world is to say nothing about religious ''truth''. But while our age may be secular, it is, at the same time, still a deeply Christian one. If atheists feel they must rip up everything that came before them, they will destroy the very foundations of that secularism.

Surely, to argue for atheism, there is no logical need to denigrate past Christian accomplishment.

Click to expand...

Everyone/everything is criticized at some point of time by someone. You cannot please all people all the time.

So Secularism is a watered down version of Christianity. Why should Non-Christians follow Secularism?

Click to expand...

Well, India is an exception. It follows a novel & indigenous version of secularism that is derived from its age-old tradition of peaceful-coexistence.
State has no religion in India. It does not interferes, promotes, supports or persecutes/denigrate in any religious affairs. Faith is matter of individual choice in India.

Also, atheism is an off-shot of Christianity. If a person says, "I am an atheist", he is unknowingly following Christianity.

Click to expand...

Well, No. It is false notion. For India, that does not hold true. Nastik's have always been there in India in the Indian in significant strength. Upanishads/Mimansa's delve in great detail on the different of school of thoughts in India prevailing since eons.

Regarding Atheism, MÄ«maá¹ƒsa theorists decided that the evidence allegedly proving the existence of God was insufficient. They argue that there was no need to postulate a maker for the world, just as there was no need for an author to compose the Vedas or a God to validate the rituals. Mimansa argues that the Gods named in the Vedas have no existence.

Everyone/everything is criticized at some point of time by someone. You cannot please all people all the time.

Click to expand...

Atheists are like Ahmadiyyas who have manipulated Islam and are following their own way of Islam.

Atheists have done the same to Christianity and are cutting off the Christian roots while inheriting the structure.

That is civilizational robbery!

Well, India is an exception. It follows a novel & indigenous version of secularism that is derived from its age-old tradition of peaceful-coexistence.

Click to expand...

1) Is secularism universal?

2) What India has been following for 10,000 years is Dharma which is inclusive of peaceful co-existence. So Dharma already satisfys the requirement of India and all the people of India including minorities. Secularism is a Christian concept. Why does India need Secularism when Dharma is enough for its requirements?

State has no religion in India. It does not interferes, promotes, supports or persecutes/denigrate in any religious affairs. Faith is matter of individual choice in India

Click to expand...

.

1) Define Religion?

2) Indian State does promote, support and aid certain religions while degenerating and suppressing other religions.

3) The level of your faith is decided by the underlying politico-religious ideology governing the faith.

Well, No. It is false notion. For India, that does not hold true. Nastik's have always been there in India in the Indian in significant strength. Upanishads/Mimansa's delve in great detail on the different of school of thoughts in India prevailing since eons.

Regarding Atheism, MÄ«maá¹ƒsa theorists decided that the evidence allegedly proving the existence of God was insufficient. They argue that there was no need to postulate a maker for the world, just as there was no need for an author to compose the Vedas or a God to validate the rituals. Mimansa argues that the Gods named in the Vedas have no existence.

I think this would suffice.

Click to expand...

1) Is atheism a universal concept?

You are trying to use the christian values and are promoting them as universal concepts and applying to the Indian context.

It does not work both ways.

2) If Secularism has some other definition like Equality of all religions and mutual and peaceful co-existence.

Isn't Indian society already professing the above characteristics from the time being?

Atheists are like Ahmadiyyas who have manipulated Islam and are following their own way of Islam.

Atheists have done the same to Christianity and are cutting off the Christian roots while inheriting the structure.

That is civilizational robbery!

1) Is secularism universal?

2) What India has been following for 10,000 years is Dharma which is inclusive of peaceful co-existence. So Dharma already satisfys the requirement of India and all the people of India including minorities. Secularism is a Christian concept. Why does India need Secularism when Dharma is enough for its requirements?

.

1) Define Religion?

2) Indian State does promote, support and aid certain religions while degenerating and suppressing other religions.

3) The level of your faith is decided by the underlying politico-religious ideology governing the faith.

1) Is atheism a universal concept?

You are trying to use the christian values and are promoting them as universal concepts and applying to the Indian context.

It does not work both ways.

2) If Secularism has some other definition like Equality of all religions and mutual and peaceful co-existence.

Isn't Indian society already professing the above characteristics from the time being?

Click to expand...

By illustrating the above points, you are only supporting my position.
That's what I am trying to convey: We already know all about Secularism since antiquity & we have been practicing it, more or less, successfully, so there is no need of making hue-&-cry over it.

Secularism is not a Western Import, it is just one aspect of peaceful co-existence & we have been proponents of the same.
At least, no one can incriminate India over any civilizational plagiarism for we have the first-mover advantage. In fact, we are veterans in the game.

By illustrating the above points, you are only supporting my position.
That's what I am trying to convey: We already know all about Secularism since antiquity & we have been practicing it, more or less, successfully, so there is no need of making hue-&-cry over it.

Secularism is not a Western Import, it is just one aspect of peaceful co-existence & we have been proponents of the same.
At least, no one can incriminate India over any civilizational plagiarism for we have the first-mover advantage. In fact, we are veterans in the game.

Click to expand...

Why use the word Secularism then?

Why not Dharma?

Civilizational Robbery in the sense robbing Christianity of its roots.

Civilizational Robbery in the sense robbing Christianity of its roots.

Click to expand...

Because, in the prevailing atmosphere on DFI, you have to be politically correct, toe the UPA/Congress line, sympathize with left-leaning liberal ideologues (dutifully accept what JNU mandarins preach), try hard not to sound nationalist/patriotic for it is "cliched/old-fashioned/not-the-in-thing" & subscribe to what the DFI elite coterie/old-boys club tells you.

Or else, one faces the inevitable. yes, your got it (Infractions are doled out & real threat of ban).

Spelling the world "Hindu" might spell doom for your short-lived stint at DFI. The moment you commit any of the above mistakes, the ultra-liberal brigade at DFI would be at your neck. Out-of-the-blue, you would be abused by all & sundry & you cannot do a thing about it since all your privileges were already revoked the moment you dared to committed any of the above folly. Toe our line/Get in line or get banned, is the clear message on DFI.

One may or may not agree with me (no one has to) but I have been made to learn these facts in a very subtle way. No offence intended to anyone
I prostrate before all of you on DFI.

So Secularism is a watered down version of Christianity. Why should Non-Christians follow Secularism?

Also, atheism is an off-shot of Christianity. If a person says, "I am an atheist", he is unknowingly following Christianity.

Click to expand...

You are correct Afako , only those who oppose christianity physicfally but interiorize it say this and add this with their hatred of rituals which too is a christian viewpoint originally , it completes the process.

Because, in the prevailing atmosphere on DFI, you have to be politically correct, toe the UPA/Congress line, sympathize with left-leaning liberal ideologues (dutifully accept what JNU mandarins preach), try hard not to sound nationalist/patriotic for it is "cliched/old-fashioned/not-the-in-thing" & subscribe to what the DFI elite coterie/old-boys club tells you.

Click to expand...

You have reaffirmed your retard-ness by this post (which was already apparent to most right-thinking people anyway).

Not a single active member of DFI at the moment is a "Congress supporter". Neither the admins, moderators, nor the owner, nor me. Everyone hates the Congress and UPA. If anything, the hate for JNU and jholawalas is even greater. Apart from 1-2 inactive members, there is not a single "UPA/Congress supporter" here.

And only a thorough moron will claim that the people of DFI are not nationalistic and patriotic. Every active Indian on DFI is nationalistic to the point of being jingoistic, including me. Your problem, as with most underachievers in life, is your inflated sense of pompous self-importance, as though you and your racist ilk have the monopoly on patriotism. Till you come down to Earth, you will continue to have problems not just on DFI, but also elsewhere.

Take your inflated sense of self-importance elsewhere. No one likes it here.

While atheism does not satisfy the first two aspects, to deny that atheism has evolved in a christian based civilization and carries with it all of the aspects:

i.e the subtle destruction of countries, IMF, the 'love of christ' doctrine used differently but essentially amounting to impoverishing people and then using money and psyco warfare to convert them; these are all there.

That is all I have to say, secularism is a doctrine in which you ignore obvious enemies until it is too late, it seems to have infected the UPA.

They act as if we didn't co-exist peacefully before, atleast on matters of faith. They seem to think we need to appease all of our enemies to appear secular, and have 'human rights'.

I see nothing in our traditional doctrine (i.e Sikhi, Vedas, Bhudi, Jain, etc.) that states any evil towards others; however, these foriegn ones whether Islam, Christ, Communist, or other state everyone else to be an enemy, or that they must rot in 'hell'.

Caste being our own evil which is withering, beside that my point stands.

I havn't read all the posts, but my 2 cents to add are these:

The world used to be indo-centric, bhud dharma from Iran to China ushering in peace we know well what forces have destroyed that peace, internal and external.

We have no need to turn to the rest of the world for advice, indeed they should look to us.

However, we do seem to have some parasites that should be taken off so that we may prosper.

In a world like that, I am a full Indian, otherwise I am a 'separatist' against not my people, but the government.

Because, in the prevailing atmosphere on DFI, you have to be politically correct, toe the UPA/Congress line, sympathize with left-leaning liberal ideologues (dutifully accept what JNU mandarins preach), try hard not to sound nationalist/patriotic for it is "cliched/old-fashioned/not-the-in-thing" & subscribe to what the DFI elite coterie/old-boys club tells you.

Click to expand...

That is not correct an assessment.

The only thing DFI insists is factual representation of one's viewpoints and in civilised language.

Not a single active member of DFI at the moment is a "Congress supporter". Neither the admins, moderators, nor the owner, nor me. Everyone hates the Congress and UPA. If anything, the hate for JNU and jholawalas is even greater. Apart from 1-2 inactive members, there is not a single "UPA/Congress supporter" here.

Click to expand...

I wonder if anyone 'hates' the UPA or JNU or any other organisation.

DFI would like to believe that posters articulate their views very ardently based on issues and not political affiliations.

The only thing DFI insists is factual representation of one's viewpoints and in civilised language.

Click to expand...

Well, let us not go there as talk about impartiality is irrelevant anywhere and no matter how much civilized langauge one uses, there are certain restrictions which you have to follow and that is all truespirit said.

I wonder if anyone 'hates' the UPA or JNU or any other organisation.

DFI would like to believe that posters articulate their views very ardently based on issues and not political affiliations.

Click to expand...

You are too senior member to be corrected on anything but sitting on fences like our generals do has been greatest disaster to our country in last 60 years or so.

Well, let us not go there as talk about impartiality is irrelevant anywhere and no matter how much civilized langauge one uses, there are certain restrictions which you have to follow and that is all truespirit said.

You are too senior member to be corrected on anything but sitting on fences like our generals do has been greatest disaster to our country in last 60 years or so.

Being from a multi religion family, I find the secularism being paractised in India is a bit of a political skulduggery with oodles and oodles of bogus crocodile tears being shed and turning the concept of secularism on its head!

I feel secularism means equality without religious consideration in all issues that are temporal and not spiritual!

Even today there is an opinion by Deleep Padgoankar in TOI with the title 'Across the Secular Divide'. He is the same man who enjoyed the hospitality of the ISI front, Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai!

And he was an interlocutor handpicked by the Govt to talk to the Hurriyat!

I have read your posts despite being a new member and my intention was to communicate the idea that there are cases where you must choose someone instead of "all politicians are bad and only army can save the country" line and it was not directed at you but i was talking it generally.

I have read your posts despite being a new member and my intention was to communicate the idea that there are cases where you must choose someone instead of "all politicians are bad and only army can save the country" line and it was not directed at you but i was talking it generally.

Click to expand...

If you had observed my posts in the forum, I have never claimed that Army is the sole lot that are good.

In fact, I have been critical where criticism was warranted.

I try to be as even handed as possible.

I am totally against the idea that the Army can alone save the country.

Politics and governance is not the Army job and they are least trained for both!

If you had observed my posts in the forum, I have never claimed that Army is the sole lot that are good.

In fact, I have been critical where criticism was warranted.

I try to be as even handed as possible.

I am totally against the idea that the Army can alone save the country.

Politics and governance is not the Army job and they are least trained for both!

Click to expand...

Perhaps my broken english caused this misunderstanding. What i wanted to say is that you( in general sense not to our bengali patriot) have to take sides in some of the ideaological and political conflicts and so when someone talked about JNU jholawalas being a sort of nuisance, one can not pretend to ignore it. They are related to a political group which has history of being traitors to nation.

RSN Singh, a security expert, was mentioning this thing on TV and the moment he did that, all were shouting at him as how dare he talk on political issues instaed of being " impartial". If he supports Raman Singh as a security expert, he is not doing anything bad no matter how much political class is enraged with him.

That is what my original point was: we should as patriots take sides on all political and ideaological battles and choose least evil rather than weeping that all politicians are bad.

Raman Singh is not as bad as Ajit Jogi so far as being in bed with naxals are concerned and this must be stressed upon notwithstanding the possibility of some foul mouthed secular brigade defaming us.

Next he will claim he is a descendant of Hanuman since Darwin said so!

And since Hanuman was not given equal status to Ram, Ajit Jogi in protest concerted to Christianity!

His heart is now bleeding for the slaim Salwa Judum head.

Check this

Stop salwa judum campaign: Jogi

created by Government-supported â€˜salwa judumâ€™ campaign in Chhattisgarh, former Chief Minister Ajit Jogi has said that the campaign should be stopped as there could be only a political and social solution to the naxal issue .

He was speaking at â€˜Peoplesâ€™ convention on salwa judum: civil war in Chhattisgarh,â€™ organised by Campaign for Peace and Justice in Chhattisgarh here on Tuesday. Though the intention of the campaign was good, its implementation has led to unbridled exercise of power, violence, bloodshed, exploitationand â€œjungle raj.â€

The Bharatiya Janata Party has â€œunleashed its plansâ€ of creating a foothold in the State through the campaign, Mr. Jogi said.

â€œPeople are moved from their own villages and forced to live in camps. Their culture is being destroyed ,â€ he said.

Click to expand...

Guess who was the founder of Salwa Judum?

On May 25, 2013, its founder Mahendra Karma, who had become a senior Indian National Congress party leader was killed in a Naxalite attack along with other party members in Darbha Valley of Chhattisgarh, 400 km south of Raipur and 50 km from Jagdalpur.